Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 25

Pension Regulations, Volume-I (Armed Forces), 2010---

----Reglns. 2(j), 32, 49(b)(1), (2) & (3), 63 & 100---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 25---Grant of special family pension to widow/parents/children and dependent of the Armed Forces Officers/AFNS Officers---Scope---Reasonable classification---Intelligible differentia---Mother of the martyred military officer claimed special family/full pension after the death of first recipient (wife) on the ground of discrimination---Respondent raised an objection that petitioner was only entitled to ordinary/normal family pension---Validity---Under Regln. No.49 when the deceased officer is survived by a widow in such case Clause-b(1) of Regln. No.49 would be attracted, and if there is no widow at the time of death of deceased officer Clause-b(2) would come into force---Case of the appellant being mother would, thus, be covered under the former Clause and she could not press into service Regln. No.63 in support of her claim, as the said provision of law primarily dealt with the cases of normal pension and it carries the eventualities where the original grantee died or suffered some disqualification---Appellant was precluded to take refuge of said provision of law---Article 25 of the Constitution though ordains that all citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law and also guarantees that there shall be no discrimination on the basis of sex but equality does not prohibit classification for differently placed persons---Doctrine of reasonable classification is founded on the assumption that the State has to perform multifarious activities and deal with a vast number of problems---Right of equality of citizens is always founded on an intelligible differentia, which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those, who have been left out---Right of equality is always to be weighed amongst equal in all respects and it is not necessary that every citizen shall be treated alike in all eventualities, thus, in the light of clear distinction of service cadre and nature between a Commissioned Officer and Junior Commissioned Officer, the contention of the appellant was highly ill-founded---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.